Gyronne Buckley v. Keith Ray, 848 F.3d 855

In 1999 Buckley was convicted of two drug deliveries after a controlled buy; conviction rested on an informant's testimony. A videotaped pre-trial interview later showed prosecutors' agents coaching the informant; this video was not disclosed at trial.
Buckley learned of the video during federal habeas proceedings; his state conviction was vacated (Nov. 1, 2010) and charges dismissed (Dec. 6, 2010). Clark County court sealed/expunged his record under Arkansas law in 2012.
Buckley filed a claim with the Arkansas State Claims Commission seeking compensation for wrongful conviction; Assistant Attorneys General reviewed sealed trial records and opposed compensation before the Commission and a legislative subcommittee; the Legislative subcommittee denied compensation.
Buckley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against law-enforcement defendants (Brady claim), several state AGs (due process for accessing sealed records), and sought a class action / injunctive relief against the U.S. Attorney General for systemic racial-bias claims; he also pleaded a state-law defamation claim against the AG who testified.
The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants: it held AGs were entitled to qualified (and quasi-judicial) immunity and legislative privilege shielded the defamation claim; § 1983 claims against law-enforcement defendants were dismissed as time-barred. Buckley appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AGs’ access/use of expunged records violated substantive due process	Accessing and relying on expunged records is conscience-shocking abuse of power	Defense: conduct was reasonable to defend State before Claims Commission; not conscience-shocking	No substantive due process violation; conduct did not shock the conscience
Whether AGs’ actions violated procedural due process by depriving state-created liberty/privacy interests	Arkansas expungement statute created liberty/privacy interests triggering due process protection	AGs: no state-created liberty interest exists; qualified immunity applies	No state-created liberty interest (Eagle v. Morgan); AGs entitled to qualified immunity
Whether AG McDaniel’s legislative testimony stating alleged damaging tape content was actionable defamation	Statement was false and defamatory; damages sought	McDaniel: absolute legislative privilege/legislative immunity for testimony before legislative body	Claim barred by absolute legislative immunity; dismissal affirmed
When § 1983 Brady claims against law-enforcement defendants accrued for statute-of-limitations purposes	Accrual delayed until Buckley was free from jeopardy (Dec. 6, 2011) because of Heck concerns about impugning potential conviction	Accrued when conviction was vacated (Nov. 1, 2010); three-year limitations ran Nov. 1, 2013	Accrual on vacatur (Nov. 1, 2010); claims filed Dec. 5, 2014 are time-barred (Wallace controls)

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to accused violates due process)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (limitations on § 1983 claims that would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rule for § 1983 claims; Heck does not delay accrual for anticipated future convictions)
Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (absolute legislative immunity protects legislative acts)
Eagle v. Morgan, 88 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 1996) (Arkansas expungement statute does not create a protected liberty interest)
Hart v. City of Little Rock, 432 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2005) (limits on substantive due process claims against officials)
Avalos v. City of Glenwood, 382 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2004) (conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process)